Emergy Evaluation of the Total Pollutant Load Management System in the Masan Bay Area in Korea

Restore America’s Estuaries 7th National Summit on Coastal and Estuarine Restoration and 24th Biennial Meeting of The Coastal Society November 1~6, 2014 Gaylord National Convention Center, National Harbor, Maryland

Daeseok Kang, Pukyong National University Jungho Nam, Korea Maritime Institute Won Keun Chang, Korea Maritime Institute Jongseong Ryu, Anyang University Contents

• Introduction • Emergy Concept and Procedure • Masan Bay TPLMS Evaluation • Conclusions Introduction u Masan Bay is one of the most polluted coastal waters in Korea due to heavy industrial, urban, and port developments over the past decades Ø Chronic summer hypoxia and red Ø End-of-pipe measures had not worked well in improving the environmental quality of the bay u First coastal total pollutant load management system (TPLMS) in Korea implemented to improve conditions of the bay since 2007. Ø Goal : Water column COD at 1.85 mg/L in 2011 with the reduction of COD load of 4,503.41 kg/day, through extension of sewer coverage, advanced sewage treatment, and stream restorations u Emergy methodology was used for a preliminary evaluation of benefits and costs of the first coastal TPLMS to better understand its performance and ultimately provide policy insights for future coastal TPLMS. Emergy Concept & Procedure u How do we value things? • with money as the common denominator • based on willingness-to-pay of people Purchases of fuels, goods, and services Products and services

free work $ Payment Main Energy Economic Economy Sources Nature's Work Use Sales

Used energy u Any other common denominators instead of money? • energy as an alternative because it is involved in every process on earth Emergy Concept & Procedure Ø Energy memory Ø “Available energy of one kind previously required directly and indirectly to make a product or service” (Odum, 1996) • Unit: emjoule, solar emjoule (sej) Ø Biophysical approach in valuation C D B E Tide Fuels Goods Rain Services

A

Sun Marine Harvested Wind Fishery Ecosystem Fish

Used Energy

Solar emergy of harvested fish = Sum of all emergy inputs A (or B, C) + D + E Emergy Concept & Procedure

Source : TEEB (2010) Emergy Concept & Procedure u Donor Approach vs Receiver Approach in valuation Perception Receiver value: Willingness Concept of a value Production $ to pay $ originating from Receiver receiver perceptions

Labor

Emergy value: Concept of a donor value Production Donor Value originating from required inputs Sources of donor value Source: Odum (1996) Emergy Concept & Procedure u Ø How do we compare different things? Ø How much money do I have? • $100 + ₩100 + €100 + ¥100 = 400 ???

Ø Conversion factors needed to compare different things • Exchange rate as a conversion factor to compare different currencies • $100×1,055.20₩/$ + ₩100 + €100×1,033.39₩/€ + ¥100×9.64₩/¥ = ₩ 209,923 (Exchange rate as of September 30, 2014) Emergy Concept & Procedure Ø Energy quality • Differences in the ability to do work among energies • Conversion factors needed to compare different energies • Unit emergy value: transformity (sej/J), specific emergy (sej/g), emergy-money ratio (sej/$), etc, with as the reference point

Sun 1 sej/J Odum (2000) Wind 2,450 sej/J Odum (2000) Rain 30,500 sej/J Odum (2000) Wave 51,000 sej/J Odum (2000) Tide 73,900 sej/J Odum (2000) Iron ore 5.78×109 sej/g Cohen (2005) Gold 5.04×1011 sej/g Cohen (2005) EMR for Korea in 2011 5.42×1012 sej/$ Kang (2013) Emergy Concept & Procedure

Ø Emergy flow (sej/yr) = Biophysical flows (J/yr, g/yr, etc) × Unit emergy value (sej/J, sej/g, etc) Ø Conversion of emergy value to money • Emvalue = Emergy flow / Emergy-money ratio ex) Emvalue of tidal energy in Korea in 2011 = 54.0×109 em$/yr (2.89×1023 sej/yr) / (5.36×1012 sej/$) • Emergy-money ratio (EMR) = Total emergy used in an economy / GDP - Unit: sej/$, sej/₩, etc - EMR of Korea in 2011: 5.36×1012 sej/$ Total emergy use (5.98×1024 sej/yr) / GDP (1.11×1012 $/yr) Masan Bay TPLMS Evaluation u Masan Bay area in 2010 Ø Population: 1,103,849 people (2.3% of the country) Ø Area: 744.26 km2 (0.7% of the country) Ø GRDP: 30.4 trillion KRW (2.5% of national GDP) 2 Ø 9 industrial complexes428 with a total areaW.K. Chang of et al.178.3 / Marine Pollution km Bulletin 64 (2012) 427–435 u Evaluation boundary Ø Masan Bay Total Pollution Load Management System • Marine area : 70.9 km2 • Land area : 263.98 km2 Ø COD reduction target • 4,503.41 kg/day Ø Evaluation period • 30 years (2011~2041)

Figure from Chang et al. (2012)

Fig. 1. Map showing the sampling locations in the study area. Sampling details are fully given in Table 1.

sediments, with a total investment of 36 million USD. However, about 264 km2. Fourteen small rivers drain the watershed, supply- these preliminary efforts failed to improve the quality of the water ing 611,000 tons of freshwater on average per day to the bay. The in Masan Bay. Samho, Nam, and Changweon rivers account for about 55% of the More recently, a total pollutant load management system total freshwater inflow. Masan Bay is a semi-enclosed coastal (TPLMS) was launched for Masan Bay in 2007, targeting a level of embayment, with a surface area of about 71 km2, an average depth water quality that is suitable for ‘swimming and fishing’ by 2020 of about 10 m, and a total volume of 0.77 109 m3. The bay has a  (MLTM, 2008). The TPLMS project comprises a total of 800 km of low water-exchange rate with residence time of bay water having combined sewer networks that convey sewage to two central 53.7 days in the inner bay and 23.2 days in the whole bay (Lee WWTPs that have been upgraded with an advanced biological et al., 2009). The south part of the bay is connected to the Jinhae 1 2 treatment facility and an extended capacity of 500,000 tondÀ Bay system (approximately 637 km in the surface area), which (82% of total freshwater input). To date (2007–2010), over 200 mil- includes Masan Bay and several other small bays. Three cities sur- lion USD has been invested into the TPLMS, with 30% of funding round Masan Bay, namely Masan City, Changweon City, and Jinhae being provided by the private sector. The main purpose of the City. These three cities are highly industrialized and, in 2010, had a TPLMS was divided into two stages: (1) the reduction of organic combined population of ca. 1.1 million people. The population den- matter (targeting chemical oxygen demand–COD–loads) from sity is 3167 persons per km2, which is 6.5 times above than the point sources in the watershed during 2007–2011 and (2) the national average. The urban area of the three cities contributes to reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus related nutrients in the about 40% of the total watershed area. The relatively small size bay through regulating diffuse sources across the watershed of the watershed is due to its steep slope towards the coast. during 2012–2016. The original morphology of Masan Bay has been strongly mod- Appropriate monitoring is crucial to identify the efficacy of the ified over the last four decades by the construction of dikes across TPLMS, in addition providing a useful tool to verify the acquisition large areas of tidal wetlands and by extensive dredging activities to of the established goals (Boesch, 2002). Therefore, since 2005, com- maintain navigation routes in the channel. Intensive industrial and prehensive surveys have been undertaken at periodic intervals to residential development resulted in an increase of impervious and monitor the land-based pollutant load and general water quality paved surfaces in the watershed area, for example, covering about of Masan Bay. In this paper, we explore in detail the spatiotemporal 30% of surface area by 2006. responses in water quality of Masan Bay to pollution abatement The survey conducted within the framework of this study can measures that have been conducted over the last 20 years. To spe- be divided into three categories (Data Sets I–III) based on their spe- cifically quantify the efficacy of TPLMS implementation, we evalu- cific purposes (Table 1). Details of water sampling, including sam- ated the existence and magnitude of temporal trends and pling area, sampling activities, frequency of sampling, target water variability in water quality over a six-year period (2005–2010) quality parameters, and other acquired data, are presented with with respect to (1) land-based pollutant loads discharge and (2) respect to data category. univariate parameters of the receiving water quality in Masan Bay. First, the pollution load of the water from inland areas was mon- The target area of Masan Bay (Fig. 1) is located on the southeast itored by river water sampling (Data Set I). In total, 14 river sites coast of Korea (35°30–35°160N, 128°320–440E) with a watershed of (R1–R14) were surveyed monthly from June 2005 to December Masan Bay TPLMS Evaluation u Emergy costs and benefits of the Masan Bay TPLMS Ø Cost from an economic assessment (KMI, 2012) • Sewer coverage, advanced sewage treatment, stream restoration Ø Ony two benefits were considered in this study • Oxygen increase from decreased COD in the water column • Return of 5 endangered sp., 1 natural monument sp. to the bay Emvalue Emergy Items Data Unit Emergy Value (million em$) (sej) National Local Cost 3.22E+08 $/30 yrs 5.51E+12 sej/$ 1.78E+21 322 322 Benefit 7.03E+20 128 332 Oxygen increase 4.93E+10 g/30 yrs 8.65E+07 sej/g 4.27E+18 1 2 Migrating birds 3 species 2.10E+20 sej/sp. 1.57E+20 29 74 Resident birds 2 species 2.10E+20 sej/sp. 4.19E+20 76 198 Crab 1 species 1.22E+20 sej/sp. 1.22E+20 22 58

• UEVs : species from Irvin (2000), oxygen from Ulgiati and Matias (2001), emergy-money ratios from Kang(2014) • National: based on national EMR, Local: based on local EMR Conclusions u This study demonstrated that the emergy methodology could provide a useful tool in comparing the costs and benefits of coastal TPLMS implementation in Korea. • More coastal TPLMS are under development for other areas. u However, limited data and information for the Masan Bay TPLMS did not allow for an in-depth analysis of TPLMS performance. The followings are needed to better understand the performance of coastal TPLMS and guide decision making process to improve it. • For costs, detailed data on material and energy required to implement measures to reduce pollutant input to the bay are needed • Other benefits should be included in the evaluation • Unit emergy values for protected or rare species in Korea need to be estimated Thank you for your listening!